On Monday, August 03, 2015 06:30:13 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Paul Moore <pmoore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday, August 01, 2015 10:08:14 PM Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:49:18PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 09:39 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Mark Wielaard <mjw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209492 (an to this > >> > > > email) > >> > > > to revert the yama config setting to the upstream default. This > >> > > > fixes > >> > > > >> > > That would make the sysctl file systemd just added on your request > >> > > completely pointless and actually incorrect because changing the > >> > > value > >> > > wouldn't work at all. > >> > > >> > Yes, that is a downside of the patch. You won't be able to switch the > >> > default value anymore. But if we cannot do that by installing the > >> > sysctl > >> > file in either the kernel or systemd the alternative would be to hunt > >> > down and fix all individually packages that rely on ptrace working > >> > normally. Which seems unattractive to me if the fix in the kernel is so > >> > simple. > >> > >> It took some time but we eventually came up with a solution. Stephen > >> Smalley who added the support for yama originally to the fedora kernel > >> agrees with the approach. And Paul Moore is making sure this gets merged > >> upstream. Attached are commits for f22, f23 and master. Please let me > >> know > >> if you need anything else to get these applied. > > > > For the record, I don't really consider this a long term solution as the > > risks associated with ptrace() still exist. While Mark and a few others > > on the BZ are happy to discount the risk, I am not. However, my current > > workload doesn't allow me to keep arguing with Mark so I'm looking into > > ways to leave Yama in the kernel, but disabled by default. If someone > > else is able to continue fighting for ptrace restrictions at this point > > in time, I would suggest adding yourself to the BZ. > > > > Also, it appears that the patch I posted last week isn't really viable > > upstream due to a general distaste of setting sysctl defaults with CONFIG > > settings. I have another thought, but I think that discussion is better > > had on the BZ than on this list. > > Right. This is what I meant by "carrying a patch forever" in the bug. > And because of that, I'm probably not going to apply this to Fedora. I was only proposing the patch upstream; if it isn't upstream I don't want us to carry it either. > If you have a link to the upstream conversation I would appreciate it. Unfortunately, the LSM lists appears to be having some issues at the moment, one of which is that the MARC archives do not appear current. -- paul moore security @ redhat _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel